• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

the official new supreme court thread - Very political

Shooshmoo said:
Junebug Esq. means the position that has been the law of the land for 40 years, btw.
Click to expand...


And which in the two cases prompting this discussion have rulings by courts/judges already favoring the schools. Yet it seems a grand mystery.
 
WakeBored said:
I'll be honest--if I were defending your position, I'd probably resort to baseless personal attacks too.
Click to expand...

If you were really being honest, then you wouldn't be defending his position. That would require having to address the demonstrable fact that the implementation of this abhorrent policy is (to the surprise of no one) also abhorrent. Abhorrent enough to prove even the most skeptical critics of the policy correct. Go back and read those quotes (the ones that the anti-racists among us refuse to address). Look who's saying them. Look at why they are saying them. Look at the dismissive othering. There's a reason that not even the almighty Shoo (great lawyer, so I hear) will defend it. It is indefensible.

The most interesting part of this exchange is not that the Tunnels Left is whistling past their own racist graveyard (old news). I am fascinated that MDMH hasn't read the Petition yet. When he does, he's going to be in for a big surprise. He might find the University's attitude about the use of economic class as a factor (in lieu of race) rather interesting. Sure, the University considered it, but....no.

Giving admissions preferences based on socioeconomic status instead of race, the court believed, would always fail because “the majority of low-income students are white,” and so universities would just “‘be choosing more white students.’”

Apparently the plan is to unwind the effects of privilege by taking opportunities away from really poor white people and Asian teenagers.

So...baseless personal attacks it is.
 
WokeandBroke said:
If you were really being honest, then you wouldn't be defending his position. That would require having to address the demonstrable fact that the implementation of this abhorrent policy is (to the surprise of no one) also abhorrent. Abhorrent enough to prove even the most skeptical critics of the policy correct. Go back and read those quotes (the ones that the anti-racists among us refuse to address). Look who's saying them. Look at why they are saying them. Look at the dismissive othering. There's a reason that not even the almighty Shoo (great lawyer, so I hear) will defend it. It is indefensible.

The most interesting part of this exchange is not that the Tunnels Left is whistling past their own racist graveyard (old news). I am fascinated that MDMH hasn't read the Petition yet. When he does, he's going to be in for a big surprise. He might find the University's attitude about the use of economic class as a factor (in lieu of race) rather interesting. Sure, the University considered it, but....no.

Giving admissions preferences based on socioeconomic status instead of race, the court believed, would always fail because “the majority of low-income students are white,” and so universities would just “‘be choosing more white students.’”

Apparently the plan is to unwind the effects of privilege by taking opportunities away from really poor white people and Asian teenagers.

So...baseless personal attacks it is.
Click to expand...

I do my best not to get baited into race vs class arguments - it’s been a tough 6 years for that dichotomy, but i’ve learned.
 
How does one decide which race/class groups own opportunities that could be taken away?
 
WakeBored said:
I can't tell if you are being willfully ignorant, or the other kind. I'll say it again--UNC justified its policy solely on the ground of the asserted educational benefits of diversity. You and others (including Trimp) are making a reparations-type of argument. You can argue that until you are powder blue in the face, but that is not part of the case.

If you are defending UNC, you have to show that: (1) the putative justification for the policy--the educational benefit of a diverse college education experience--is a compelling governmental interest, likely by (a) assuming that White and non-White college students are so different from one other that there is some associational benefit to having them sit together in class and (b) measuring the benefits of the policy in terms of the benefit for White students of having more non-White students around; and (2) the policy is narrowly tailored to serve that interest such that it is the least restrictive means of doing so--i.e., there isn't any other race-neutral way that the governmental interest could be served, such as admitting the top 10% of every NC high school's graduating class, basing admissions decisions on socio-economic factors, etc., etc., etc.

That's the framework this will analyzed under. Best of luck.
Click to expand...

I just want to say that I don’t know shit about UNCs policy. It probably sucks because everything about UNC sucks. My argument is that JHs appeals to emotional garbage about AA fixing racism with more racism is a dumb argument. The goal of the law is to take a small step towards undoing centuries of oppression and exclusion. UNCs implementation maybe clumsy but that’s a problem with UNC, not the law or it’s purpose.
 
"the data" -- let's see it. I'd like to see the data tying it directly to affirmative action programs. Not really being swayed by you pulling from the petitioner's briefing and "the data" wasn't in there.

Wonder which party has been responsible for Asian hate recently -- can you guys fill me in on "the data" on that? Could it be the "China virus" party?

Here's some data - 70% of Asian Americans support affirmative action, only 16% oppose. But you should probably whitemansplain your position on their behalf - not all Asian heroes wear capes.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/70-asian-americans-support-affirmative-action-here-s-why-misconceptions-n1247806

"According to the national 2020 Asian American Voter Survey, which examined almost 1,570 voters, targeting the six largest national origin groups, found that 70 percent of Asian Americans supported affirmative action, while 16 percent opposed it. Chinese Americans, who were the least likely of the ethnicities to back the program, still favored it at a majority of 56 percent.

Data on Harvard’s own admissions shows that race-conscious admissions have benefitted all communities, including Asian Americans, producing a more diverse student body, Yang said.

Harvard’s admissions statistics show that the share of its admitted class that is Asian American has grown by 27 percent since 2010, according to the university's response to the lawsuit. When looking at its class of 2023, Asian Americans make up more than 25 percent, while Latinx students comprise just over 12 percent and Black students constitute more than 14 percent.

A working paper published last year in the National Bureau of Economic Research revealed that 43 percent of white students admitted to Harvard fell under the categories of recruited athletes, legacy students and children of faculty and staff. That share also includes what’s referred to as the “dean’s interest list,” which consists of applicants whose parents or relatives made donations to the university.

The research noted that roughly 75 percent of white students admitted from those categories, identified as "ALDCs," "would have been rejected if they had been treated as white non-ALDCs."

Misconceptions persist among Asian Americans, however. Experts point out that one prevailing myth that fuels those who oppose affirmative action, as well as the group behind the lawsuit, is that there is a cap on Asian American acceptance. Thus far, no evidence of such a cap has been found.

Janelle Wong, a professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland, College Park, noted that another dangerous misconception is that affirmative action equates to giving Black and Latino students unearned opportunities.

“No, affirmative action is not a special preference. It is one tool to address current systemic barriers for Black and Latino students who are both qualified and deserving of higher education,” she said.

Vincent Pan, co-executive director of nonprofit Chinese for Affirmative Action, agreed, noting that while the support and leadership from the Asian American community on the issue of affirmative action is too often ignored, there does continue to be a segment of the population that is complicit in the right-wing agenda to upend race-conscious programs.

Wong isn’t so sure the Supreme Court will take the Harvard case when appealed, particularly since the lower courts have uniformly ruled that the university doesn’t discriminate against Asian Americans and have upheld the view that its race-conscious admissions process is constitutional.

Take another L, dumbass.
 
Shooshmoo said:
"the data" -- let's see it. I'd like to see the data tying it directly to affirmative action programs. Not really being swayed by you pulling from the petitioner's briefing and "the data" wasn't in there.

Wonder which party has been responsible for Asian hate recently -- can you guys fill me in on "the data" on that? Could it be the "China virus" party?

Here's some data - 70% of Asian Americans support affirmative action, only 16% oppose. But you should probably whitemansplain your position on their behalf - not all Asian heroes wear capes.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/asian-america/70-asian-americans-support-affirmative-action-here-s-why-misconceptions-n1247806

"According to the national 2020 Asian American Voter Survey, which examined almost 1,570 voters, targeting the six largest national origin groups, found that 70 percent of Asian Americans supported affirmative action, while 16 percent opposed it. Chinese Americans, who were the least likely of the ethnicities to back the program, still favored it at a majority of 56 percent.

Data on Harvard’s own admissions shows that race-conscious admissions have benefitted all communities, including Asian Americans, producing a more diverse student body, Yang said.

Harvard’s admissions statistics show that the share of its admitted class that is Asian American has grown by 27 percent since 2010, according to the university's response to the lawsuit. When looking at its class of 2023, Asian Americans make up more than 25 percent, while Latinx students comprise just over 12 percent and Black students constitute more than 14 percent.

A working paper published last year in the National Bureau of Economic Research revealed that 43 percent of white students admitted to Harvard fell under the categories of recruited athletes, legacy students and children of faculty and staff. That share also includes what’s referred to as the “dean’s interest list,” which consists of applicants whose parents or relatives made donations to the university.

The research noted that roughly 75 percent of white students admitted from those categories, identified as "ALDCs," "would have been rejected if they had been treated as white non-ALDCs."

Misconceptions persist among Asian Americans, however. Experts point out that one prevailing myth that fuels those who oppose affirmative action, as well as the group behind the lawsuit, is that there is a cap on Asian American acceptance. Thus far, no evidence of such a cap has been found.

Janelle Wong, a professor of government and politics at the University of Maryland, College Park, noted that another dangerous misconception is that affirmative action equates to giving Black and Latino students unearned opportunities.

“No, affirmative action is not a special preference. It is one tool to address current systemic barriers for Black and Latino students who are both qualified and deserving of higher education,” she said.

Vincent Pan, co-executive director of nonprofit Chinese for Affirmative Action, agreed, noting that while the support and leadership from the Asian American community on the issue of affirmative action is too often ignored, there does continue to be a segment of the population that is complicit in the right-wing agenda to upend race-conscious programs.

Wong isn’t so sure the Supreme Court will take the Harvard case when appealed, particularly since the lower courts have uniformly ruled that the university doesn’t discriminate against Asian Americans and have upheld the view that its race-conscious admissions process is constitutional.

Take another L, dumbass.
Click to expand...

Uh...they just took the Harvard and UNC cases. Those are the cases we've been talking about this entire time. Dude...
 
PhDeac said:
How does one decide which race/class groups own opportunities that could be taken away?
Click to expand...

Here's a perfectly good idea: one doesn't. Admissions are a zero sum game. If you give a spot to Student A, you take it away from Student B. I think you can do it for any not illegal reason you want to and that can be a reflection of the values of your University. Maybe Student A is a great musician. Maybe her Mom gave a lot of money. Maybe they are a legacy. Maybe they are a first generation college student. Maybe they finished in the top 10% of their high school class. Maybe they started a nonprofit to raise money to distribute car seats to deserving families. Maybe they worked to provide for their family. Maybe they cared for a special needs sibling. Maybe you want someone from all 50 states in your class. Anything that suits you is fair game, except for those things that would deny people equal protection under the law.

If you use your considerable imagination, the number of things you can do should dwarf the things you can't do, and I bet that properly done they would get you where you want to go in terms of dividing opportunities. There are only a handful of things that you're not supposed to do. Treating people differently based upon the skin color is one of those things.
 
I guess the question I have is if these two cases are so obviously horrible and thus an easy decision for courts to overturn as Woke insists, how and why did two federal trial courts and a federal appeals court rule in favor of the universities? What did (or didn't) they see that Woke so obviously does?
 
Last edited:
WokeandBroke said:
Uh...they just took the Harvard and UNC cases. Those are the cases we've been talking about this entire time. Dude...
Click to expand...

uh...dude.... that's my point. Activist court is taking on laws that have been settled for decades. You're almost too dumb to insult.
 
birdman said:
I just want to say that I don’t know shit about UNCs policy. It probably sucks because everything about UNC sucks. My argument is that JHs appeals to emotional garbage about AA fixing racism with more racism is a dumb argument. The goal of the law is to take a small step towards undoing centuries of oppression and exclusion. UNCs implementation maybe clumsy but that’s a problem with UNC, not the law or it’s purpose.
Click to expand...

Conceptually, the practice of the government allocating opportunities based upon skin color is inherently problematic. Recognizing that the State's playing with Constitutional fire, it's only allowed by the law when required to achieve a compelling interest and when no race-neutral measures can further that interest. That's the backdrop. In that context, "Clumsy with good intentions" is a losing argument.

This case is going to be decided on the following two questions:

1. What is the compelling State interest?
2. Can they prove that no lesser measures would further that interest?

Let's assume for the sake of argument the schools can get past step #1. How can these schools argue that race neutral economic/class factors don't advance the goal of expanding opportunities to all?
 
Shooshmoo said:
uh...dude.... that's my point. Activist court is taking on laws that have been settled for decades. You're almost too dumb to insult.
Click to expand...

Two decades ago O'Connor wrote a majority opinion that said this practice should be looked at it determine if it still passes scrutiny. Two decades later, that's what they're doing. I linked it for you earlier in the thread. Did you read that? The fake tough guy act is a tell. It's unconvincing. Read the decisions instead.
 
Give me a fucking break -- O'Connor (what a conservative used to be before they all went batshit nuts) saying it should be revisited in 25 years (which would be 6 years from now), is dicta, completely meaningless.

And she said that based on whether or not the iniquities were fixed -- guess what?
 
Highland Deac said:
I guess the question I have is if these two cases are so obviously horrible and thus an easy decision for courts to overturn as Woke insists, how and why did two federal trial courts and a federal appeals court rule in favor of the universities? What did (or didn't) they see that Woke so obviously does?
Click to expand...

They were following Supreme Court precedent. That's what they are supposed to do, and that's what the Supreme Court is supposed to do. Nothing has changed that would require a change to those decisions, except Republicans rediscovered their racism and are fucking loud about it now, and stacked the court with extremists via shady means. That's the only thing that has changed.
 
Shooshmoo said:
Give me a fucking break -- O'Connor (what a conservative used to be before they all went batshit nuts) saying it should be revisited in 25 years (which would be 6 years from now), is dicta, completely meaningless.

And she said that based on whether or not the iniquities were fixed -- guess what?
Click to expand...

Nobody disputes the wrong exists. We're debating the legality of fix.
 
Shooshmoo said:
They were following Supreme Court precedent. That's what they are supposed to do, and that's what the Supreme Court is supposed to do. Nothing has changed that would require a change to those decisions, except Republicans rediscovered their racism and are fucking loud about it now, and stacked the court with extremists via shady means. That's the only thing that has changed.
Click to expand...

Thanks, that's pretty much what I figured. I just found it more than a little curious that Woke was calling what UNC was doing appalling and apparently an easy decision for the courts to overturn, yet a federal court has already ruled in UNC's favor and two federal courts have ruled in Harvard's favor. If the Supremes vote (likely 6-3) to overturn the lower courts, it seems like they're the activist ones here, not the ones following precedent.
 
Last edited:
Shooshmoo said:
Yeah, well, that has already been decided. Now your activist court will be activist. Congrats -- you're in a safe space. No one can hurt you. Shhhh.. it's ok.
Click to expand...

In the A harms B, and then we use affirmative action to help B harm C example, where are C's rights in your analysis? Inferior to those of B?
 
Well, you still haven't shown that C's are actually harmed by B's. In fact, C's seems to favor affirmative action over not having it by a very large margin. It also seems like preferences give to certain A's based on legacy, donations, sports do more harm to C's than B's ever would. Maybe it is time for you to C your way out of this conversation with another L.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top